I was having a discussion with my friends, and somehow someone happen to come up with a question about Hitler...was he a great leader or did he have a "sick" mind? Come on... I mean he may be evil, he may have a sick mind, but he was smart, otherwise how would he had counquered the most of Euroupe and terriozed the world into WW2. What do you think Hitler was?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure why being a great leader and having a sick mind are considered exclusive. While I'm not entirely sure that Hitler was really a great leader -- he made too many obvious mistakes for that to really apply, IMO -- he was reasonably effective at implementing his chosen programs for a while. But he ALSO clearly had, as you put it, a sick mind.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
He led his people into something they still haven't fully recovered from. He cemented hatred, suspicion and fear of Germany in the minds of much of the rest of Europe. That's not what a great leader does to those he leads.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
I'm assuming this belongs on the Other Side?
He seemed to be very adept at getting people worked into a fervor and then using that momentum to his advantage. I wouldn't say he was a great leader militaristically, nor was he a good leader for his people. He was good at controlled rabble-rousing however.
Edit: Oh yeah, he was absolutely twisted in the mind. Very much crazy.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
Before he went nuts he did bring back germnay from a third world economic depression to one of the worlds most dominant military powers. This doesnt change my opinion that he is one of history's greates monsters
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
a military build up that would've in of itself crippled Germany, 80 Billion dollars from 1933 to 1939 is not sustainable by ANY military at that time.
His victories in Poland and France was due to his trusting his younger Generals at a criticle time, he was suspicsious of his General Staff of the "Old School" and their Protests at Anschluss and the Munich Conference made damn sure he didnt trust his older more experianced but slower Generals.
So instead he trusted newer kids like Gudarian and Manstein who proposed in the first case using Blitzkrieg in Poland, and in the second case putting the bulk of the Panzer forces in the Ardennes (Gudarian was a huge help having served in the Ardennes in WWI and thus assured Hitler that it was passable to tanks).
He was good at manipulating people which allowed Germany to become somewhat war ready by 1939, but as the war dragged on his flaws acculmilated causing catastrophic defeats at Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, Moscow etc.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
lesson learned dont mess with russia Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
As my WWII prof put it: One of the first things Hitler did when he got to Paris was visit Napoleon's tomb. Now, what are the two things you really should learn from Napoleon? England is harder to take than you'd think, and don't go to Russia.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The problem is an ambiguity in the word "great." Hitler was very effective at getting Germans to give him power. He was utterly ineffective at, say, not getting his country pulverized because of his actions. And he clearly wasn't good.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
You can also look at the definition of the word 'leader'. Boy did he ever lead ... and he was followed fanatically for the most part. So from that standpoint, he was adept at leading. But he was a complete and utter loony also, especially when it came to warfare. From my perusings of history, it seems that a leader is either great in war and sucky at politics, or sucky in war and great at politics. Hitler appears to be the latter.
Posted by Darakemba (Member # 9341) on :
I am currently doing a report on the Anthropology, Psychology, and the ideology of the Aryan race and in my research I found Hitler's 9 principles to leadership and I must say they are amazing. If this man wasn't the monster that he was he would have been an excellent leader. If you want I can find the book and post all the principles and a short explanation of them. There is one that sticks in my mind though ad it is "When motivated people can move mountains but it is the leader who tells them which mountains to move." He had great respect for the people of his country and knew that without them he would have no power even is his "people" where the blond haired, blue eye people of the "Aryan" race.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
not to be a bother but they arent exactly original, the concepts behind excellent leadership especially military leadership you can easily find in the works of Sun Tzu or Confusious.
Posted by Darakemba (Member # 9341) on :
I never said they were original. I understand that some of them may not have been his own original Ideas but the way he explains them to fir the current times in Germany are definatly his own.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I could totally kick Hitler's ass in a game of Axis and Allies.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i played it many times, basically you have to throw and i mean literally throw EVERY asset you have at Russia to ensure headway, you have to beat Russia in like 3-4 turns if your going to have enough time to fight off an Anglo-American expeditionary force in Europe.
(This is the AA Europe mode, the world map is substantially easier for the axis)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)